Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/408823/Brands-as-Memes-The-same-thing-we-do-every-night-Try-to-take-over-the-Discourse

1. The same thing we do every night –
Try and take over the Discourse:
Brands as Memes
By Chris Cox
-1-

2. Declaration of plagiarism
I, _________________________, hereby declare that:
 I understand what plagiarism entails and am aware of the university’s policy in this
regard.
 I declare that this final research script is my own, original work. Where someone else’s
work was used [whether from printed source, the internet or any other source] due
acknowledgement was given and reference was made according to departmental
requirements.
 I did not make use of another learner’s previous work and submit it as my own.
 I did not allow and will not allow anyone to copy my work with the intention of
presenting it as his/her own work.
Signature Date
__________________ ____/____/____
-2-

3. Content page p.
Declaration of plagiarism i
Content page ii
Abstract iv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. LIVING IN LANGUAGE 3
2.1 Natural hierarchies 3
2.2 Technologies of the self 5
2.3 Ways of interacting 6
3. LIVE AND LET DIE 9
3.1 Living in the moment 9
3.2 Brands are central 10
3.3 Evolution of a new way 11
3.4 The power of resonance 13
4. CONNECTING DEEPLY 15
4.1 Deep identity 15
4.2 “Just knowing” 16
4.3 Branding without branding 18
4.4 Contact in the right light 20
4.5 Interaction escalation 22
5. CONNECTING IN THE RIGHT WAY 26
5.1 Social violation theory 26
5.1.1 Social proof 28
5.1.2 Calibration 30
5.1.3 Permission 13
5.1.4 Social Roles 30
5.2 Managing expectations 33
5.3 A product of discourse 35
-3-

4. 6. DOMINATING THE DISCOURSE 36
6.1 Nurturing niches 36
6.2 Frame control 40
6.3 Dealing with power relations 47
6.4 Ascendancy 51
6.5 Holding court 53
7. CONCLUSION 58
8. SOURCE LIST 60
-4-

5. Abstract:
This paper argues that peoples’ lives and experiences are socially constructed, and that social
constructs are linguistic-social constructs; as such brands are cultural-linguistic constructs
(memes) whose goal is to dominate the discourses within which they are involved. The
importance of that is that they cannot act as objects communicating outwards, but as evolving
self-designed mental entities designed to prosper in a specific environment (just as their physical
counterparts would). The world of human social interaction and social hierarchy are ones
embedded in language; humans (and now brands) make use of sophisticated ‘technologies of the
self’ in order to control the ways in which they interact and are perceived to be interacting in this
milieu; brands as memes however require human hosts and must ensure that they understand the
various factors and resulting techniques that will best enable them to survive and replicate.
As a result this paper argues from the basis of myriad social science sources that brands stand to
benefit by reframing their understanding of reality accordingly. First brands must ensure that
they not only have deep and authentic identities that (at least purport to) extend well beyond
profit-making, but that they must also engineer interaction with audiences that drives audiences
ever-deeper into the reality of the brand, all the while their communication, especially all of
those factors that register below the level of conscious perception but nonetheless shift people’s
perceptions of an interaction, must communicate this identity authentically. Second, brands stand
to benefit by engaging critically in audience-communication, understanding first and foremost
the intrinsic sense-making mechanisms of individuals and the rules that govern social
interactions in deeming actions ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ and assigning value, and the
techniques to leverage these. Third, brands can benefit by realising how they can achieve the
dominance and control of a discourse, by understanding how to select and nurture niche markets
into the mainstream, by controlling the shared understanding and experience of the discourse by
all parties involved, by making use of specific techniques in regulating, equalising and even
creating power relations, by making use of specific techniques in order to achieve ascendancy
over competitors, and finally by engineering and subverting discourses around a brand.
-5-

6. 1. INTRODUCTION
The existence and use of a medium of expression places at its mercy those who make use of it.
Sapir (1958:69) makes the assertion that the concept of non-verbal thought is in fact a fallacy,
and all thinking is in fact linguistic; hence, the worlds in which different groups live are, in fact,
distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached: “[people] see and hear
and otherwise experience very largely as [they] do because the language habits of [their]
communit[ies] predispose certain choices of interpretation.” Language, Whorf (1956:213)
asserts, is an obligatory agreement between members of a group to organise, ascribe significance
to, and codify that which we perceive in specific ways, as guided by the language’s pre-existing
constructs, and reflected in the patterns of their language. No person, object, idea or action that
can be articulated can thus be devoid of significance, of a categorisation, or of associations and
emotional connotations. Conversely, Chandler (1994a) posits that the language used by the
individual is influenced by the way in which they see the world.
Brands do not exist outside of this matrix. The world of commerce and economy is a
linguistically constructed world that lives and breathes and exists within the broader social
world. In fact, this very principle is the cornerstone upon which branding exists, and its raison
d'étre – without the power of emotional connotation and of a linguistically defined world all that
remains is bland, flat objectivity. Yet simultaneously brands, as entities with the ability to
articulate concepts and ideas (albeit on a much larger scale) are not confined to the realm of the
object – that is, the article being defined. They are able to also contribute to and co-create
discourses. Furthermore, although the exact mix and flavouring of perceptions of the
experienced world, and the conceptions surrounding, are unique to each individual, the realm of
shared understandings, perceptions and conceptions of groups of belonging is the vaster by far.
Humans involuntarily enter the contract of their medium of expression at a very young age as
individuals. But language is not a static entity. Even as language novices children begin to twist,
distort, conjugate and misinterpret terms, which are occasionally even adopted by adults; this
process becomes increasingly more effective as the language user becomes more adept, and as
levels of interaction increase these language mutations become increasingly common. Dialogues
within groups, and between groups, shift and incrementally evolve, and at times even radically
change the meanings of terms. When this insight is considered in connection with Sapir-Whorf’s
hypothesis that language defines the human experience of life, it is clear that the life experiences
of individuals are socially constructed, to at least some degree (dependent on the extremity of the
-6-

7. interpretation taken of hypothesis is) as they share ‘sociolects’ – that is, the shared languages of
groups (Chandler, 1994a).
With this realisation comes the opportunity for brands to enter these dialogues not as objects
hoping and attempting to be interpreted in a specific way, but rather as active participants who,
making use of the rules of the discourse they intend to enter as regarding engagement and
reinterpretation, utilise their unique (and given the proper application of these rules, remarkably
powerful) voice to shift the discourse in directions favourable to the brand.
Upon the consideration of the fact that the perceptions an individual has of what is outside of
him/herself are linguistic and social constructs, the logical conclusion must be reached that the
perceptions and relationships with these entities (people, objects, ideologies, etc.) are constructs
that ‘live’ in the mind of the individual. As such, these perceptions and relationships are not
objective constructs, but rather subjective and evolving ideas: what Dawkins (2006:189) calls
“memes” – the cognitive equivalents of the genes; units of cultural transmission. These memes,
and their combination, necessarily (building from the argument previous) form the basis of the
individual’s experience of life. Memes often exist in clusters of more-or-less integrated
cooperative sets, known as memeplexes – explaining the way in which upon joining new groups
people often take on new language (the ‘sociolects’ spoken of previously) and new seemingly
unrelated attitudes and behaviours. Arguing that most of what is unusual about humankind can
be summed up as “culture”, Dawkins (2006:191) asserts that cultural transmission, while mostly
conservative, like genetic transmission, can give rise to a form of evolution, citing the example
of the evolution of language, which clearly does not evolve along genetic lines. However, it is
not only language, but also fashion, customs, art, architecture, engineering and technology,
amongst other things which all evolve in a way that “looks like highly speeded up genetic
evolution, but really has nothing to do with genetic evolution.” In the online world, blog posts
are clear examples of memes: one can observe a given blog post an author has written, follow it
(through Trackbacks) as other various authors engage with and mutates and spreads it, and in
turn how their readership too engages with it.
As one of the constructs, and units of culture, that ‘live’ in the minds of individuals, brands are in
fact memes; if this is so, brands then have the ability to impact upon their human carrier’s
experiences of life in a deep way; brands are internal to their ‘human carriers’, not external; they
are social entities, not objects; they need to interact with people as groups of human individuals,
not as masses. They need to learn to be sociable. As such, the task of this paper will be to give an
-7-

8. account of at least the most significant and rudimentary means whereby groups interact with
memes, drawing from the social sciences factors that make specific memes more effective in
their quests to both survive and replicate in social group settings, with a particular focus upon
how memes are able to not merely survive but in fact dominate a particular discourse. This new
perspective may enable brand communication professionals to reframe some views related to
branding, enabling the viewing of branding practises in a sliver of potential new light and spark
new potential territories for thought and research. Additionally, in accordance with the
postmodern perspective of this paper, its aim is primarily to be useful and to generate beneficial
explanations and territories for others to do likewise, as opposed to aiming to be ‘true’ or giving
an flawless explanation of an objective ‘reality’.
2. LIVING IN LANGUAGE
2.1 Natural hierarchies
Brands, and memes in general, do not exist in a static environment; as such, like their organic
equivalents, they are forced to adapt and develop, for only those most effective in survival and
replication have futures. Godin (2000) asserts that “[w]hen you create an idea and lay the
groundwork for it to become a virus, it pays to study the vector you’d like it to follow. Why?
Because there’s plenty you can do to influence its vector, and the vector you choose will have a
lot to do with who “gets” the virus. The vector controls the hives through which the idea flows.”
In the same way, but potentially more significantly, and earlier in the design process, it is crucial
to understand the elementary tenets of change in the contemporary environment wherein they
exist, so as to understand the changes that they necessarily must undergo in order to survive.
The contemporary commercial environment has become increasingly similar to the natural
environment – it is increasingly cluttered and highly competitive, it is unforgiving, it requires
quick adaptation and implementation, it requires the development of communities of trust and
trusting synergistic relationships.
Schumpeter, according to McCraw (2007), argues that the American “scheme of values” in the
19th century, “drew nearly all the brains into business …and impressed the businessman’s
attitude upon the soul of the nation.” Furthermore, business in this manifestation constantly
fights for its survival in the competitive environment, developing what modern business schools
call “strategy,” that is, “an attempt by firms to keep on their feet,” as Schumpeter put it, “on
ground that is slipping away under them.” Considering this it is inevitable that innovation
-8-

9. ensues as monopolies’ profits are swiftly eroded by the vigour of new entrants to capture share
of market through superior perception management and through superior competitive offerings –
all of which drive innovation in their respective areas, and moreover speed the rate of
environmental change, which reciprocally drives the rate of necessary innovation. The
contemporary situation is defined by change and innovation at an accelerating rate; the key to
long-term success lies in brands’ abilities to dominate particular discourses, and in order to do so
innovation is important in their ability to develop and evolve with, and ahead of the environment
and offer value in unique and sustainable ways – that is, ensuring that the brand exists in a
favourable way in the minds of its audiences, making use of authentic and effective social
interaction, and through what Godin (2000) styles “sneezable” product/service offering-
experiences – that is offerings that are easily spread and incite users to spread them.
Ensuring that brands exist favourably in the minds of audiences becomes increasingly complex
as one considers the implications of brands as memetic entities, existing within complicated
social structures, whose ultimate goal is to dominate particular discourse; fortunately, this
perspective also avail the brand of increasingly powerful and effective tools and perspectives.
Social value and hierarchies are created and exist linguistically in social settings linguistically as
this paper has asserted previously. Baudrillard (2002) argues that:
“Meaning is based upon an absence (so 'dog' means 'dog' not because of what the word says, as
such, but because of what it does not say: 'cat', 'goat', 'tree' et cetera). In fact, [he viewed] meaning
as near enough self-referential: objects, images of objects, words and signs are situated in a web of
meaning; one object's meaning is only understandable through its relation to the meaning of other
objects. One thing's prestigiousness relates to another's quotidianity.”
As such it would seem a pertinent to engage the topic of group theory.
If the human experience of what is perceived as ‘reality’ is in fact socially constructed, then it is
also true that it is constructed from an innumerable multitude of sources, both those that have
aided the individual in its construction in the past, and those that ongoingly aid in its construction
presently.
An individual is at any time under the influence of a vast number of “groups of belonging” (past
and present) and is under the influence of and is taking part in a number of “discourses”, all of
which merge in a complicated self-interpretative and negotiated compromise that is the
‘personality’ of the individual. The manifestation thereof occurs through the filter of what
Foucault labels the “technologies of the self” – referring to the “ways in which people put
-9-

10. forward, and police, their "selves" in society; and ways in which they are enabled or constrained
in their use of different techniques by available discourses,” (Gauntlett, 2007). Groups of
belonging and discourses encountered are generally linked; and owing to the memory of humans,
and their need to generate fictions to account for their experiences, exposures and cognitions,
however temporary, ‘live in’ individuals. That is, their effects are lasting, and like myriad
chemical elements continuously added into a single test-tube in varying quantities remain inert or
mix and react spontaneously, rendering unique individuals, and driving action in those
individuals. Unlike the chemicals in a typical test-tube however, these elements need not form a
coherent solution, and are more-or-less cordoned off from one another, oftentimes acting and
generating action in highly paradoxical and even contradictory fashions, which the host may or
may not comprehend.
2.2 Technologies of the self
Brands, like natural entities strive to ‘insert’ a consciousness, personality and interpretation of
their pasts and world experiences, constantly encountering and interacting with surrounding
discourses, and negotiating power and perceptual definitions. However, unlike natural entities,
brands have a far greater scope for identity and level of control of the creation and
implementation thereof. That is, their technologies of the self tend to be more developed, and the
finances and skills, as well as media available to the brand to represent itself offer far greater
flexibility and scope than the options available to the typical individual. Yet, brands would seem
to be unversed in the social discourses into which they are necessarily placed, and the rules,
regulations and power constraints with which they are faced in these scenarios, oftentimes
brazenly ignoring these factors to their (relative) detriment.
All ‘personalities’ are in one sense memes, and any individual and group will have specific
relationships with them: regardless of whether one regards a human, a tangible object, or even an
action or abstract thought, all are socially constructed memes. In this sense, everything is a
brand. However, memes in the popular sense are contagious (or attempt to be contagious at
least); this leaves an interesting quandary: how does an entity manipulate its technologies of self
in such a way as to both imbed itself in others as a concept for a sufficiently long period of time
(longevity) for so as to enable it to spread to new others (fecundity) with a degree of accuracy
(copying fidelity), while also ensuring that its host is under its command in some sphere and
takes a desired action – some memes are primarily ‘actionables’: for instance a person singing
and thus spreading unconsciously a specific version of a specific song, despite that version not
- 10 -

11. being taught to them, or even authorised, owing to them hearing another person accidentally sing
the incorrect words (Dawkins, 2006:323); but many memes are primarily ‘view-shifting’, in that
they distinctly take ownership of a specific territory in the minds of individuals that has impacts
upon other memes and ways of viewing things and acting, and may secondarily contain an
actionable component. This should however not be seen in a binary fashion, but rather as a
gradiented continuum; most brands fall neither squarely on one extreme or the other, but rather
at a point in between, although it would be reasonable to expect that more low-involvement
brands would be situated nearer the actionable extreme, while the converse would be true for
higher involvement brands, as one would tend to ‘define’ oneself more by their higher
involvement purchases (although it must be noted that for different individuals and groups
different items will be perceived as low- or high-involvement, and also those perceptions
projected onto others; for a specific group of teenagers bound by a common group and discourse
around skateboarding, one’s choice of cola may be an intensely defining moment of self – brands
can never lose sight of the fact that in this framework their identity makes up a part of the
consumer’s identity, and their very being must intrinsically give rise to meaning and value).
To be sure, even the concepts collectively making up communication practises and what it is to
‘be’ groups are memes; these ideas can be exchanged, interlinked, spread and can evolve
dynamically (as well as be actively fostered in a given direction, given proper care). The
implications of this entire section is that both memetic entities and their technologies of the self
(in the case of sentient entities) both function within specific frameworks of discourse, and are
also made up of specific frameworks of discourse; they can only act and evolve as these
discourses enable them to.
2.3 Ways of interacting
Like humans, brands have ‘living’ personalities and manifest them through skilfully managed
technologies of self; only the media involved differ. Yet, brands for all their insights into others,
skills in developing communication, and their budgets in ensuring communications brands
frequently fail to engage positively with the one key area that it is easiest for them to forget, as
essentially non-physical entities. It is this same area whose interpretation is the key basis for
social skill to the socially savvy human, and it is this same area that brands would be best to
learn in order to best ensure their success, and this is element is the understanding of discourses
of social group interaction. Brands, as pure memetic entities like texts, are not self-validating in
the way that humans are – human beings can and will construct memetic entities to create
- 11 -

12. meaning in a given scenario. Hence, brands need an audience (a host), as well as an author (cf.
Chandler, 1994b; Fish, 1980) in order to have meaning – thus they must exist in a social context
and take part in the particular sociolect of a particular group in a particular context.
It is clear that the brand must employ a variety of communication messages and techniques in
order to successfully escalate interaction, particularly in a properly calibrated media effort.
Barthes (Hawkes, 1977:114) argues that two fundamental styles of texts exist, in terms of their
engagement of the reader: the readerly (“lisible” in the words of Barthes, or perhaps a more
relevant term in the digital era, from Chandler (1994), “userly”) and the writerly (“scripible,” or
perhaps “makerly” (ibid)). A readerly text leaves a reader with a simple ‘accept’ or ‘reject’
response to the text, treating the writer as the producer and the reader as the passive consumer
and suggest their ‘reflection’ of the ‘real world’ (examples are that of a telephone directory or a
dictionary). On the other hand, a writerly text requests the active participation of the reader, and
takes a level of involvement in the construction of reality (for example, a poem or short story
tends to fall into this category). Ironically, it can be argued that for many people it is the readerly
texts that tend, in fact, to be described as 'readable'; whilst writerly texts are often referred to as
'unreadable' as they require a far more active involvement and analysis. However, it is not only
the style of the text, but also the manner wherein the consumer of the text engages it: for
instance, poem might be used as a source of biographical information, while a dictionary might
be used as a source of ‘found poetry’ – with experienced readers the usage of a text can depend
entirely upon the reader, although the text might position itself as facilitating a particular use
more conveniently and effectively, which can be equally important, in what the age of the “time
starved” postmodern consumer (cf. Bellman et al., 1999; Grewal et al., 2004)
However, with the encroachment of postmodernism into Western society, and its gradual
infiltration on both conscious and unconscious levels into the mainstream, it would seem that
increasing amounts of content are entering the realm of the makerly – for instance, a vast amount
of MTV’s generated and broadcast content could be classified this way; as could the
contemporary trend of blogging, forums and other so-called ‘Web 2.0’ content and mobile
media. The growth of “New Media” – over the period 2000-2007 Internet usage alone has grown
225% to just under 18% of the world’s population, with some regions reaching almost 70%
penetration as at 30 June 2007 according to Nielsen//Netratings (Miniwatts Marketing Group,
2007) – appears to lend itself to the argument that the contemporary consumer seeks a more
interactive, self-generated, and credible (to their own worldviews and language surrounding)
experience (cf. McCarthy and Wright, 2004; Szmigin 2003) – which may, owing to its
- 12 -

13. interactive and highly targeted (albeit oftentimes self-targeted) nature, straddle the definitions of
userly and makerly.
For the brand this represents opportunities to define itself and be defined in ways that will be
insightfully favourable to the brand – i.e. it is not always favourable to promote oneself, or one’s
claims explicitly, it may be more favourable to use a more makerly approach – for instance,
while targeting a number of highly diverse consumer groups with a single message (owing to
budget constraints, or in order to reduce message complexity, or even to establish a greater
degree of consumer ownership of the brand and its messages). The Savanna cider brand in South
Africa may be a good example of such a strategy, where the only brand advertisements are at
best tangential to the product itself, but whose content and tone facilitate a makerly interaction
with the brand, as a variety of audiences interpreted the brand into their own contexts and
linguistic constructs. This effect can oftentimes be enriched through the use of micro-targeting
strategies wherein dialogue is created.
It could be argued that makerly communications are the ‘indirect’ method, soft sell (cf. the early
work of Rubicam of Young & Rubicam fame) method of advertising which best facilitates
comfort and rapport building – but that it is possible that these brands leverage moments of
userly communication and directness in order to capitalise on comfort and value created (as
Savanna does from time-to-time with its various promotional offers). This argument could be
extrapolated to hypothesise that the reason social and cause branding is effective is only partly
due to consumer’s values level identification with the firm, but also owing to the manner
wherein consumers are able to engage with the branded material, constructing their own
conceptions and being ‘trusted’ by the brand to do so, resulting in a higher level of rapport and
trust it allowed to built through such an interaction.
Needless to say, this is not merely a message construction constraint, but a more all-
encompassing consideration that extends to choice and placement of media, as well as target
audience insights and roles. Media choice is a particularly important consideration in this view as
certain media are more prone to the facilitation of certain types of interaction, by certain
audiences in specific roles and states, at specific times. For instance, a businesswoman who is
also a mother of two children may experience an advertorial placed in the business section of a
newspaper publication on her public transport trip to work in the morning as an interactive
debate, where she actively considers the opinions of the authors and debates them with her own
evaluations, allowing them to spur her on to further evaluations and musings, but may
- 13 -

14. experience an aesthetically appealing advertisement in a woman’s magazine read during a lunch
break in a park in a highly userly manner, merely accepting or rejecting the information,
considering only the credibility of the source and her own experiences in the matter. Likewise, a
teenage school-going girl may glance upon the same aesthetically appealing advertisement in a
the same publication and engage with it in a makerly manner, constructing semiotic and
experiential meanings and attaching them to the message; but may engage with a television
advertisement for a petrochemicals firm played during the evening news in a highly userly
manner, accepting or rejecting the message based on anecdotal and experiential sources.
Although closely related, userly and makerly modes of interaction are not to be confused with
Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) central and peripheral routes of persuasion, which deals
predominantly with the person experiencing the message and their ability or inability to process
the content, and the according effects this has upon them, where’s the work of Barthes as applied
here is concerned with constitution of the message and the format wherein it is engaged by the
consumer, and the impact that has upon the reception of the brand.
3. LIVE AND LET DIE
3.1 Living in the moment
In order for the brand-meme to obtain said hosts they must perform the two essential functions of
organic entities: survive, and replicate. Both require the brand to at least purportedly provide
benefit (or threat of harm if removed or not taken on) to their host or potential hosts. For a brand
to survive, it need only fend off offending competitors (see Ascendancy under 6.4) – which may
include subtly unrelated other memes that may slow or stop consumption behaviour. For a brand
to be readily spread, or be “sneezable” it must necessarily resonate on a most deep level with the
audience it hopes to engage with, in the environment it hopes to engage with them in, ensuring
that its communication is appropriate to the mental state and role of the audience – what is
known as “need-states” (Schreuder, 2007) (cf. Rodgers, 2004), which draw from the theory that
there are a limited number of primal human desires (for instance ‘health and beauty’, ‘power’,
‘status’, etc.) and that these are manifested more or less strongly in certain moments, and that
products should be engineered, marketed and made available to meet those needs in those
moments. Failure to do so results in the “wallpapering” of brands – brands whose commercial
messages blend into the unnoticed background fabric of the audience.
Need-states are related to, although not the same as what can be called consumer’s “secret
- 14 -

15. expectations”: consumer’s expectations, like their need-states, are often not explicitly known to
even themselves – yet, it is clear that they are responsive to them (as a corollary, this text rejects
the dichotomy between characterisations of consumers as ‘dupes’ and consumer sovereignty
(“power of the consumer”) as superficial – both of these states exist simultaneously, but are
manifest by specific need-states at different times and in different ways in different interactions).
Unlike need-states, the secret expectations of an individual regarding a product or category do
not necessarily reveal the most effective way to communicate it, rather only the most “fitting” –
meaning, the manner wherein the consumer would be most accustomed to experiencing such
communication, which may in fact be the least effective manner in some cases. In a world where
the consumer and brand live together in synergistic relationships, much like birds who in gaining
nutrition from the fruits of plants also spread their seeds, what influences the consumer
influences the companies that wish to reach him/her – understanding these forces will define
brands and the economy going forward (Bellas, 2006).
3.2 Brands are central
To shift the analogy back, brands – like genes, their organic equivalents – have the greatest
chance of survival not alone as solitary organisms fighting for survival in the primordial
communications soup that is the discourse; but rather as the engines and the drivers behind the
survival machines that are businesses, and much more, as replicating, diversifying, evolving
organisms. This view necessarily places the brand at the heart of the business; it is the essence of
the business and its essential reason for being. The make-up of the brand may or may not be
altruistic or driven by values (as this paper later argues brands with developed identities have a
greater chance of survival), but in all businesses the brand is central as the essence of the
business, whether or not executives choose to consciously perceive it in this manner. Hence, the
definition of brand used in this paper will follow and work from Thoma’s (2007) definition as
“the sum total of all that is known, thought, felt and perceived about your company, service or
product,” where that definition encompasses not only the visual and communication elements as
the definition given by the Dictionary of Business and Management’s does (Building Brands
Ltd., 2005), but rather to all that can be perceived of the brand in the human capacity, and
applies not only to the mind’s of the consumers as the definition of Aaker (ibid) would seem to
lend itself to (as he speaks of the “value provided by the product or service” which would seem
to lend itself to a clearly consumerist orientation), but rather to all persons with any contact with
the brand – both external stakeholders of all varieties, but more importantly in ensuring a brand’s
survival and evolution into the future, internal stakeholders of all varieties, particularly
- 15 -

16. management.
3.3 Evolution of a new way
In yet another return to genetics, Darwin’s principle of “survival of the fittest” is really a special
applied case of the much larger principle that is survival of the stable (Dawkins, 2006:17). In
previous times, perhaps not even over a quarter of a century ago, a stable brand (i.e. one whose
identity was consistently manifest and introduced into consumer’s lives, and who overcome
cash-flow difficulties to ensure its longevity) was fairly sure to triumph through the “television-
industrial complex”: the ability to ‘interrupt’ consumer’s lives with advertising messages, which
in turn drove product purchase, and thus the repetition of this cycle (Godin, 2004). This cycle is
unfortunately ended – ended, just like the early stable organism’s success by the superabundance
of competition and in this case media choice also, leading to increasingly niche and fragmented
markets, dominated no longer by brands but by empowered consumers (Lindstrom, 2006). Those
that now succeed are those that are nimble and quick to change and evolve: those that best sense
the external environment and adapt. Thus, the evolution of the integrated and strategically-
oriented brand: Aaker describes how brands must move beyond mere integration, and seek
strategy and understanding of the environment within which they operate, in a far broader sense
than merely target audience media consumption, but deep insights, macro-economic, and socio-
political understandings (Singh, 2006).
These new strategically-oriented brands are akin to the earliest organisms with sensory capacity,
which in many cases greatly aids their ability to survive – but just as in evolution, some sensory
evolutions were not accurate and led their hosts to destruction, and as such were weeded out of
existence: so shall it be with branding. Yet, those that do survive will face new challenges – the
memetic pool is now too crowded for it to be dominated by one strain of thinking, and soon
competition will arise that is better equipped to deal with the realities of the discourse than these
brands even; this paper suggests that this new species of brand will not be merely functional, as
those of the industrial age were, nor will they be merely persuasive, as those of the twentieth
century were, they will not be merely strategic as those of modern times are; each generation
builds upon the last, and only its strongest survive and adapt, it is suggested that these will be the
brands that are embodiments [of the epitomisation of a discourse]. These brands will embody
and epitomise the key values of the particular discourse within which their audiences are
involved, in all aspects – the first purposefully, holistically aspirational brands (cf. Millward
Brown, 2007).
- 16 -

17. Lindstrom (2006) asserts that despite this need to adapt and build relevant relationships, and
moreover interactions, with consumers, many, if not most, brands remain unable to make this
leap successfully. First, many brands find themselves unable to penetrate the cloud of clutter
that envelopes the contemporary consumer (Godin, 2005b), unable to gain their attention as they
are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of communication and put on their selective attention
goggles – so much so that Porter (2006) believes that trusted sources account for most purchases,
citing an NYTimes article that notes that at least two thirds of NetFlix rentals are generated by
recommendations. By its very definition clutter means that most advertisements are not noticed,
probably more than advertisers would like to believe. Second, many brands find themselves
without impact on the contemporary consumer, even once they have broken through the clutter;
and when impact is achieved brands often find themselves “punching below their weight”,
failing to achieve the levels of impact they would desire on their budgets (Interbrand, 2007).
Finally brands find themselves oftentimes struggling to build rapport and trust with consumers in
a world where word of mouth and direct experience are the most, if not even the only, credible
sources; in fact, it is alleged that ten percent of the American population makes decisions for the
rest of the population through this process, on issues ranging from political voting to evening
movies (Keller & Berry, 2006).
The contemporary consumer on the other hand, can be summarily described as seeking three
attributes in their brand relationships. Firstly, consumers have grown accustomed to having a
“voice” and a say in brands and branding – desiring to contribute to and co-own both the
communication and the offering itself (Lindstrom, 2006); brands must engage consumers in
ways the consumer seeks to engage with them in, while they are in the correct state and playing
the correct role to be engaged in that way. Thus branding leaves the realm of activities directed
‘at’ audiences, to enter the realm of an activity performed ‘with’ the audience; brands become
jointly constructed (Locke, et al., 1999). Secondly, consumers seek human interaction and a
feeling of connection – one could argue, as some theorists do, that consumers experience a sense
of anxiety and alienation owing to capitalism’s and now technology’s isolating effects, as well as
the effect of increasing pace of living and shiftings away from tradional values (cf. Aaker, 1996;
Arvidson, 2005; Socialist Review, 2000). Thirdly, consumers seek authentic developed identities
and values, not mere functionality – to draw from Godin’s (2003) terminology, functionality can
only be a “purple cow” for a limited period before it fades back to “brownness” and is
reabsorbed into the clutter as consumers bore of it and competitors imitate and better it. It is
dangerous and controversial to have a developed identity and it can be unpopular for a brand to
- 17 -

18. have opinions and values, that much is true; unfortunately brands that fail to do so are most
certainly dead or dying, because brands now depend on conversations with and amongst
consumers, and without substance and without provocation and edge all that remains is
mundanity, and no conversation exists around the bland and boring – unless it is exceptional for
its incredible blandness and boringness (Lindstrom, 2006).
3.4 The power of resonance
Brands are losing relevance hand over fist in the new economy, and consumers do not care.
Brand managers do though: London (2004) quotes brand guru Aaker: “It seems that just about
every company I visit is struggling with this stuff [sharpening their brand management skills, or
risking seeing their products become irrelevant]. Either they are not sure which brands to grow,
or they have too many brands and can’t cut through the clutter, or they have brands that are
losing relevance.” New niche sub-markets emerge at an alarming pace, catching brands in areas
where they are simply irrelevant.
But how can it be ensured that a brand will be able to dominate or ‘lead’ a group that it enters,
save for by chance? For chance, after all is only another term expressing ignorance; it means
determined by some as yet unknown, or unspecified means. Surely, better performance than
mere ‘chance’ can be achieved, building from the collected experience of the social sciences and
their guiding principles and generalisations, as related to interpersonal and group dynamics in the
Western climate.
Groups are fragmenting and are being further artificially fragmented by marketers in order to
better realise the ultimate goal of “particle marketing” – marketing to unique individuals with
unique messages (cf. Godin, 2005a:100; Negroponte, 1995:164). Groups tend to be similar,
especially when they share traits that are not ‘globally acceptable’ in greater society, sharing
many other unrelated traits too as a result of the high level of group viscosity that has developed
in order to ensure the group’s survival in a “hostile” environment (Dawkins, 2006:219). Even if
the vision of particle marketing is achieved, the reality is that individual traits are memetic
constructs, which live and breathe, reproduce and evolve as socially constructed entities –
collectively these memetic constructs form a constellation of ideas, which in its ultimate form is
known as the discourse.
Owing to the fact that brands operate, as groups and individuals do, in specific networks of
- 18 -

19. discourses, with their own defining impacts upon the technologies of self ‘allowed’ to be used,
and further, owing to the fact that in order for memes to spread they necessarily must offer, or
appear to offer, some virtue if adopted (or threat of disadvantage if not adopted) – the
interpretation of which differs between sociolects – they must become shrewd in the construction
and constitution of their identities, growing ever more insight-focussed. Moreover, because life,
and the individual’s experience of it, is narrative – that is, life is not a clean step-by-step, bullet-
point process; but rather a chaotic tapestry of actions, experiences and unrelated connections –
and what is more, that within the present environment the individual’s experience of this
narrative is at best cluttered and at worst overwhelming (Schreuder, 2007) the individual’s
created internal narrative-fiction, as they recount their experience internally, leaves vast gaps
empty, as the individual consciously and unconsciously puts on their ‘selective attention
goggles’ and filters out elements deemed to be irrelevant.
If as the individual constructs their internal narrative-fiction the ‘real world’ is as a constructed
storyboard (which just as with other narratives cannot be too cluttered or too filled with
irrelevancies, in order to maintain coherence) to the individual (ibid), and the impact any
interaction has upon an individual is a question of relevance, then the natural tendency for any
communication seeking impact, especially within such an increasingly fragmented and diverse
context, is to craft increasingly niche strategies (increasing niche-ness increases potential
relevance to a particular audience, albeit at the potential cost of other audiences), and
increasingly experiential strategies (increasing experience of a relevant idea increases potential
for impact, as it ‘outclutters’ and overwhelms competing concepts, for a time).
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle made special mention of the power of the tone and style
of a message, noting that when an audience buys into a tone, they are far more likely to buy into
the logic and emotional experience of a message also (Ramage & Bean, 1998:81) – which is in
perfect keeping with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis outlined prior. Further, when groups share
common attributes (in reality, memeplexes), they will also be given to share a degree of common
tone. In order to thus resonate with these would-be consumers the brand must adopt a posturing
similar to that of the group. In fact, the brand must identify the individual memes that comprise
this memeplex with as much specificity as is possible, these must then be investigated
thoroughly, including their interrelations, and then extrapolated to their logical conclusions
(‘epitomised’, so to speak). These conclusions must then be reconstituted into a new epitomised
identity whose tone the brand communication engineers involved will reverse-engineer so as to
build a brand identity (in the modern, strategic fashion of theorists such as Aaker or Keller).
- 19 -

20. While this is related to the 20th century concept of lifestyle brands, or image branding, it is also
distinct – where those approaches were concerned with the discovery of elements of the
individual’s identity so as to discover their highest manifestations, this approach suggests that
the brand collect and reconstitute that knowledge into its own identity, and aims to embody that
identity – for instance, taking a single element as an example: where image branding might
suggest that a specific target market aspired to the lifestyle and fame of professional
skateboarders and then produce advertising suggesting that the use of their product would avail
the audience of that experience, epitomisation aims to embody such fame and fortune by literally
having the brand embody that experience by understanding what the defining expressions of key
memes are in that audience’s epitomised profile, for instance the brand targeting persons aspiring
skateboarding heroes would recognise that the defining expression are ‘realness’ and ‘comical
irreverence’ and become the most comical but aggressively blunt and opinionated brand: it
would alienate a vast portion of mainstream consumers to be sure, but the niche market being
targeted would love the brand beyond any other.
4. CONNECTING DEEPLY
4.1 Deep identity
This is not to say that “lowest common denominator” communication strategies are dead, and
that there can be no overarching principles of communication; indeed, they exist and they do
thrive, and it is likely that they will do so, so long as there remains large bodies of humans who
are linked in common languages and cultural formations (and thus fundamental philosophies,
worldviews and experiences), (Whorf, 1965:213). But their forms change, one should not
confuse the principle with the vehicle of execution – no longer are “lowest common
denominator” communication vehicles (such as national television advertising) successful;
rather, a message must have the freedom to evolve and be customised and take on different
forms, so as to best ensure their prosperity in their potential hosts. Before this paper considers
several overarching lowest common denominator communication principles for the success of a
meme, it is important to consider the impacts of the contemporary context upon the constitution
of the meme, if it is to be successful.
The contemporary brand requires an authentic identity that reaches beyond the mere sale of
products – it certainly can no longer afford to be obviously constructed (a symptom of shallow
identity and values), or to fail to offer value within its communication itself (a seemingly simple
challenge, which becomes increasingly difficult upon integration with all other identity
- 20 -

21. concerns). A successful meme meets two requirements in the minds of its hosts: meaning and
relevance. Product functionality with a twist of personality can of course fulfil these two
requirements, however the role of branding is to make sustainable that which is otherwise
unsustainable, to make competitive that which is otherwise not competitive, to add value where
there is none. This approach would be shallow and short-sighted for a number of reasons, chief
amongst which is the fact that the value of the meme is rooted in its physical manifestation –
which is not necessarily dangerous, however in this case it is as the value is functional, and thus
the threat of a competitor copying or simulating the functional benefit is of great note, leading to
commoditisation (or worse, if the competitive product is able to add value using branding
identity techniques). Of slightly longer term concern is the threat of changing consumer needs –
a product will thus require revision or even complete replacement to meet these needs, but owing
to the lack of defined brand identity continuity is most limited.
Thus, positioning centred on being “the best [product]” is not a sustainable strategy. Consumers
ask two questions upon encountering a brand, and it is suggested that they are asked (counter-
intuitively) in this order: first, “what do you mean to me?”, and second, “who are you?”. The
first can be answered by any brand, but the second requires depth and an appearance of
authenticity – for only with the second can the interaction be negotiated as between two
identities, as they seek to understand their respective roles; without this, the interaction is
decidedly one-sided. This communication as a rule should not be explicit: as a rule sub-
communication is both more powerful and more credible and authentic than explicit
communication (Rumbauskas, 2007) (many brands violate this rule owing to the challenge of
drawing audiences sufficiently into their reality as to become aware of sub-communication, this
is owing to both limited budgets and creativity, as well as poor Frame Control (discussed under
6.2)).
4.2 “Just knowing”
In the ruthless world of memetics, perception, as unfortunate as it is, is reality. If only the most
beneficial and useful memes spread there would be no war, no greed, and no questions of truth
and morals. Sub-communication is all of the cues that enable a potential host to assess the
validity and benefit of a meme – in the same way as a person might meet another person, look at
someone and hear them talk and interact with them it is possible to ‘get a feeling’ for what kind
of person they are, and of person hangs out with this person. This is not always the case, of
course, oftentimes one might interact with a person that ‘isn’t their type’ and be won over by
- 21 -

22. their charm, empathy, or humour – as one discovers other memes in common with the other, or
commended memes that are held by the other, that were not apparent upon the initial encounter
(Rumbauskas, 2007). So, while the niche of identity chosen by the brand plays a role, and
predisposes certain people and groups of people to and against it (this is an important facet – the
more niche an identity is, the stronger the connections towards it will be, and the easier satirised
it will be), it can also be subverted given sufficient resources (Godin, 2006b).
In effect, some messages have more credibility than others, they simply resonate with the
worldview of their audiences more powerfully – they are not necessarily more objectively true or
false, instead they are fictions and accounts of happenings, ideas, objects and the world of
‘reality’ whose structure and composition resonates more powerfully with the experiences and
worldviews of the audience (Godin, 2006b). In terms of branding, it is clear that as memes
brands set out with a disadvantage from the ubiquity of publications and conversations across
media criticising brands, advertising and marketing for developing ‘marketing speak’ and other
tools to synthetically veneer poor offerings. Years of inauthenticity and hyperbole have turned
branded communication into the commercial equivalent of junk-science in the minds of
audiences; even a powerfully resonating brand has still to do much work in order to overcome
this credibility gap and connect at all. One of the chief complaints levelled against corporates
engaging in ‘marketing speak’ is that in their communication no human life-experience shows:
the communication is sanitised, and consumers can perceive the cues that offer them the
impression that the message was not expressive of the sender, it was made purely because it was
they perceived that the recipient wanted to hear. By and large consumers are desensitised to it to
such a degree that they no longer expect any better – oftentimes purchase is closer to picking the
lesser of two evils (Locke, et al., 1999).
The typical approach taken to this problem, with some good effect, and which cannot be ignored,
is simple; Sink (2004) calls it the “Law of Candor [sic]” – that is, “when you admit a negative,
the prospect will give you a positive,” building from the respect given (especially in light of the
ubiquity of ‘marketing speak’ audiences are exposed to) by audiences to organisations
courageous and honest enough to admit that not everything is perfect, or aligned with their brand
images. The ability of a person, writes Von Markovik (2007:173), and how much more true of a
brand, to admit vulnerability demonstrates and creates an emotional connection between them.
This is kind of emotional connection is created not only by the ability to face up to and confront
actual weaknesses and vulnerabilities (in fact Von Markovik argues that if none are apparent to
the audience, one should structure opportunities to ‘accidentally’ reveal them), but also other
- 22 -

23. intimate types of communication – for instance life stories (which Von Markovik (2007:179)
calls “grounding” because of the way these interactive routines are able to draw the connection
between a more flamboyant and intimidating (or at least incredible) identity, and the reality of
the audience), as well as speaking openly and honestly about negativity and the hard truths of life
(with a very strong caveat: with the world-view the audience will find strong and appealing; an
honest and authentic brand is great, but no audience needs a whining, insecure or miserable
brand in their life). The revealing of vulnerabilities in a sincere and believable way builds
comfort; comfort itself is merely a lack of discomfort. It is partnered with trust, which is
generated by reliable independence of values and motives (discussed in paragraphs to come):
comfort is the belief and feeling on the part of the individual that the brand has good intentions
towards them, while trust is the belief that in situations where they feel uncomfortable the brand
will do whatever they can to make that alleviate that sensation, and make them feel safe (adapted
from Von Markovik (2007:160).
Scoble & Israel (2006) claim the success of blogging, particular in reference to what
differentiates it from other corporate communications, is due to the fact that real people are
simply more believable than actors pretending to be real people. In 1999 the movement for the
human-voice approach towards marketing was popularised by the Cluetrain Manifesto (Locke, et
al., 1999), characterised by the view that:
“These markets are conversations. Their members communicate in language that is natural, open,
honest, direct, funny and often shocking. Whether explaining or complaining, joking or serious,
the human voice is unmistakably genuine. It can't be faked… Most corporations, on the other
hand, only know how to talk in the soothing, humorless monotone of the mission statement,
marketing brochure, and your-call-is-important-to-us busy signal. Same old tone, same old lies.
No wonder networked markets have no respect for companies unable or unwilling to speak as they
do.”
4.3 Branding without branding
Popular culture archetypically accepts the existence of an internal ‘discoverable’ identity,
alterable in manifestation by circumstance and experience, but fundamentally immutable. All of
these positions are grounded in the flawed assumption that there is some kind of a natural and
undefined human self and communication. So when the Locke, et al. hope to liberate people
from "Suit speak" this is a noble aim, but it remains a misphrasing of the real situation. In light
of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, Foucault and other postmodern readings, it is not possible to take
this statement at its face value – it would seem that people are indeed more believable when they
are comfortable and they adopt the personality they have cultivated over many years, rather than
- 23 -

24. one forced to be adopted, especially when that forced personality is to represent an identity that
they do not really understand, and much worse, that they and their audience do not in actuality
believe. But make no mistake all identities, all personalities, are contrived and practised entities -
some are merely more practised and collected than others; some are picked up almost
'osmotically', while others are sought out and assimilated consciously. What must really be
understood is that upon entering any context a person will also enter a specific frame of mind
and take on the views of a specific frame of reference, and act according to certain rules
(Ronnlund, et al., 2005). Employees do not need to be 'liberated' from these rules, for all
interactions have rules, they are simply different rules, and at times more or less relatable to a
person’s ‘native’ scenario. What is truly necessary is the understanding of a new set of rules,
which are more compelling to these individuals and their interests, and equally to the external
stakeholders they are engaging with. These rules must emanate from the brand and its culture as
the driver of the business – which incidentally may be the reason many successful brands are
often driven by strong cultures emanating from strong leaders who are able to define the brand
culture (Venture Republic, 2007).
The power of sub-communication, social dynamics and memetics offer the opportunity to evade
the trap of inauthenticity, in part at least. So then, the key is not to get employees to act (all
communication as defined in the previous paragraph is actually acting, but in this sense it is
acting out an identity they do not believe or desire to enact), the key is to get the brand’s
employees to genuinely believe in identity and to either consciously (because it is seductive and
powerful) or osmotically (because it is popular and the culture of the organisation unconsciously
pressurises them to) take it on. At the same time, planned communication must reflect and live
up to that developed identity and congruently merge those realities, making use of social
dynamics principles, techniques and gambits.
In order to evade the trap of inauthenticity the key is thus simple, at least in concept: brand, but
do not appear to be branding. That is, brands should not prescribe themselves to consumers, but
rather simply make themselves available (ostensibly as a manifestation of themselves taking
action upon some aspect of their identity) so as to ‘allow’ audiences the opportunity to ‘discover’
them. It is envisioned that this approach would literally translate the brand into an activist group
in the minds of a specific group: how the brand conducts itself, the attitudes and beliefs it holds,
these are those of the cause – the level of authenticity required is very high, and it is highly
advisable that the cause and identity the business is purported to be is based upon a true
reflection of their interests, lest they be accused of inauthenticity, damaging their reputation
- 24 -

25. beyond any gains they might have achieved.
The hypothesised success of this tactic is based on at least two related principles: peacocking
(dealt with under Social proof under 5.1.1), and deep identity. Apart from the mere difference of
communication that sets the brand apart from the presumably ‘salesy’ communication of the rest
of the category (peacocking), the entity is perceived to have a ‘deep’ identity beyond the mere
sale of products (in effect, a motivation for the sale of products that inspires it to be who it is and
do what it does), capitalising upon the empathy and reciprocity generated between the individual
and the brand as the individual conceivably perceives the brand no longer as an entity merely
performing a function mechanically because it must, but as an entity that cares more about that
individual than they need to (humans only ‘write to say “hi”’ to friends – it is a decidedly
authentic and amicable gesture), or something a person similar to that individual cares about.
4.4 Contact in the right light
For this reason it is beneficial to create the impression that the agenda of the organisation is not
only that of selling and commercial gain, but that they are actually doing what they are doing
because they are authentically interested in being true to themselves, having a relationships and
living their values. Hence, when the organisation communicates with individuals using various
media it should not stem from a need on the part of the organisation to "find" and communicate
with these audiences, so as to turn a profit. No, rather it should be done because like any good
friend who has values and cares about their friend, there is a desire to communicate, and to be
together, and share their lives together. The reason the brand approaches and opens
conversations with new people is (ostensibly) never because of their need for business – it is
always a manifestation of their core values, their selves being reflected through action, which
often involves such tangential contacts with other humans, and if their values coincide with those
of the brand, or if they simply respect those of the organisation – which the organisation should
necessarily have crafted their identity to do so – then they might want to join the brand on its
quest; after all, it has status and power and a voice, and it can do things for them and with them,
and in the process each entity will get to know each other and serve each other.
This is not to say that all media contacts will be idyllic and Utopian – but rather to emphasise
that brand contacts occur, at least ostensibly, as manifestations of core values; that is, when an
organisation makes a selling offer it does so because it (ostensibly) believe that for its values to
be best realised it needs to sell a specific kind of product, manufactured and distributed in a
- 25 -

26. specific manner, to a specific audience in a specific way; and this much should more-or-less be
sub-communicated to the audience. Google is an excellent example of a brand who lives and
breathes their values – engaging in a number of purportedly benevolent acts merely as
manifestations of their values and mission.
Thus the need for the use of different media in different roles, achieving different goals – not all
media are fruitful in making first contacts with consumers; not all media are useful as
relationship building platforms; not all are of service in the attempt to sell. Hence, it is crucial to
understand the messages that the use of specific media give of a brand, its perception of its
audience and the contact (of course, it is not impossible to make a good first contact with a
billboard, for instance, but its difficult and not likely to foster good relationship; the brand would
seem to have essentially telegraphed only interest in the audience for profitable purposes, and not
identity, and definitely not interaction – more on this under Social Violation in 5.1).
Another important technique in creating brands that resonate deeply with audiences, and as
memes thus are more likely to be adopted on deeper levels is the power of humour, especially
that of the self-depreciating variety (Locke, et al., 1999) – it reflects a number of positive
attributes, chief amongst which is confidence: confidence that they are, despite their occasional
shortfallings and other potential negative idiosyncrasies, a good and a positive organisation;
confidence that their products are of quality even if there are mistakes from time to time;
confidence that the company has strong values. Organisations, like individuals should accept
their flaws and be willing to poke fun at them (See Frame Control under 6.2), even publicise
them if their existence is commonly acknowledged; if their flaws offend people they should
apologise for them and make efforts to change – for them to act that their flaws do not exist is to
insult their audiences; for them to become defensive is to lose their audiences’ trust.
Owing to the ability of memes promoting confidence, passion, ambition and persistence’ success
in triumphing over blander attributes, by imbuing their hosts with effective competitive
advantages over competing hosts these memes have come to represent ‘high value’. Other
memes that encourage or own these attributes as a part of their own identities (whose images are
able to convey this to potential hosts) are far more likely to survive (Von Markovik, 2007:24).
Drawing from the work of Tolle, Cook (2007a) – writing under the pseudonym ‘Tyler’ – writes
that self-esteem and ego are two opposing states existing in the mind of the individual; self-
esteem is a naturally occurring state in human beings, that it is their ‘default’ emotional state:
one of contentment and confidence. Ego, on the other hand is the sum of all the rational
- 26 -

27. justifications and stories told internally attempting to rationalise sensations of confidence and
contentment: a superficial veneer for the inability to deal with inner woundedness, that people
can sense, and which repels them (hence the colloquialism, “there are too many egos in this
room here today!”). He argues that only insecure people are easily offended, and cannot accept
rejection, feeling the need to justify themselves or attack others. Despite the high level of
abstraction involved in this portion of the discussion this would seem to be of great moment for
the brand, which traditionally has acted in ways that would cause an onlooker to believe if
human the brand would be an insecure egotistical person, discontent and being ‘bold’ (as
opposed to the subtlety and certainty of confidence) attempting to overcompensate for
insecurities. In another post Cook (2007b) notes that when an externally dependent attribute
becomes central to an internal identity, while potentially beneficial in the short term may cause a
person becomes “reaction-seeking” requiring the ongoing validation of that element, and in its
absence experience a crisis of identity. It is possible that this is also true of brands, who in
asserting their dominance over a category, attribute, skill, insight or group of people, may lose
sight of their broader identities becoming focussed upon that singular essence, and worse, in its
absence lose their identities and credibility both internally and externally.
One fear that may drive some brands to the use of external attributes as defining characteristics
of their identity is the fear that their identity alone is not sufficiently deep. After all, a brand
cannot ‘live its values’ if it in fact has none. Locke (1997), citing Zen master Roshi, asserts that
corporates need to “relax”: “to control your cow, give it a bigger pasture.” They should make
efforts to express themselves more organically and experiment with things, such as identities,
images, and values – in short they should remember their origins of humanness, for it is through
these origins that they are able to resonate with their audiences and thus spread.
4.5 Interaction escalation
The way wherein brands transition is equally important as the actual communication and media
choices it makes. This text appropriates the term ‘transitioning’ from the ideas of venue-
changing, time-bridging and mental state-changing used by members of seduction communities
(cf. Von Markovik, 2007; Savoy, 2006). The general line of argument there followed is that
through the exercise of venue-changing and by making use of a number of highly contrasting
highly intense emotional states it is possible to create the illusion of a deep connection and thus
deep rapport over a short time period. The leap between media, which often includes a time-
delay element (the ‘transition’) should not be harsh, providing the audience with too great of a
- 27 -

28. difference in communication style and identity (if identity must be shifted over time because
first-contacts for whatever reason do not allow the brand to give the impression of themselves
they would desire, this should be a gradual process); it should not be a process whereby the
brand directs and dictates to the audience to interact with them elsewhere and in other forms – to
do so would both confuse and incense the time-starved and media-bombarded modern consumer.
The transition should be a seductive process, luring its audience to a new medium at a new
location at a new time (or any combination thereof), providing incentives, making known why
the brand itself will be there, and how it is congruent for its own identity to work out there in that
setting. The term ‘calibration’ (Von Markovik, 2007:38) is used to describe the manner wherein
pick-up artists dynamically alter communication strategies as they ‘elicit the values’ of the
‘target’, and are able to respond to the challenges of dynamic communication scenarios with
polished and tested ‘material’ (interactive routines or stories) – in its application to branding this
paper interprets this to be the manner wherein the brand makes use of detailed insights into the
audience’s mental state and worldview as at that moment, and delivers communication thus
‘calibrated’ to meet these requirements in the formats and timeframes and flow necessary.
‘Micro-calibration’ refers to the manner wherein pick-up artists make use of a five-factor
simplification model of communication to dynamically interpret the ‘target’s’ communication
cues into easily actionable data, ensuring appropriate up-to-the-moment actions; in application to
branding this is interpreted to refer to the manner wherein technology (through elaborate and
sophisticated databasing, and complicated algorithms interpreting this data through a web of
communication-recommendation engines) in the foreseeable future could allow brands to
develop up-to-the-moment interpretations of audience mental state changes. Calibration is a
process pre-existing in the brand communications industry, although it could be argued that its
dynamism could be improved (and is likely to, given the necessity for brands to be relevant in
consumer’s highly connected and high-paced lives); while micro-calibration remains a pipe
dream awaiting sufficiently complicated data-capturing and interpretation software, and
sufficient budgets to be realised.
In terms of a practical process: the brand opens a conversation with an audience, demonstrates
value, and strikes up a connection, etc. The brand then takes its audience and entices (or perhaps
catches, if it has not yet established sufficient rapport to ‘lure’ the audience) them to engage with
either that same medium, in a different way (e.g. an advertisement leading into a press release) or
at a different time (e.g. a series of linked advertisement), or with another medium. This is
effective in the ideal scenario owing to the fact that contact time is important with consumers,
and ‘rapport acceleration’ can occur by maximising its impact by making use of synergistic
- 28 -

29. media choices, and if sufficient rapport exists this can function as one of the first compliance
tests performed by a brand, that is calling the consumer to a small action which will indicate
whether or not they are in rapport with the brand – if they fail it of course this is not a serious
blow to the brand, it only means that they have not yet built enough trust, and so should focus on
building more trust, and demonstrating more value. In the optimal scenario the brand would
hypothetically want to structure opportunities for audiences to move with them to new media as
rapidly as possible – although further research is required in investigating consumer perceptions
of time-bridging (it is hypothesised here that too short a time-bridge will damage rapport in some
instances, appearing mechanical) – and with as natural and organic an interaction escalation
process as possible. For instance, a brand might know that a group of its consumers commutes to
work daily at a specific time, and so advertises on a specific radio station during this time; this
commercial message would be linked to a press advertisement in a publication the audience
subscribes to, which might offer incentives for consumers to access an Internet site and/or text
message or take part in other mobile interaction.
Oftentimes one of the results of such a sequence of interactions may be that a consumer gives a
brand their details. This paper hypothesises that this action in itself is of no significance, and that
such details are merely the ‘receipt of interaction’; if the interaction was not good, the details are
as good as ‘wood’ – wasted paper – and thus will be the follow-up efforts of the brand (how
often do consumers forge details in order to pry around brand’s entry barriers particularly in the
online realm!). However, if the interaction occurred in a proper fashion, and succeeded in
creating solid rapport then the next interaction will occur on the terms of the brand, as the
consumer (ideally) seeks them out – the initial interaction is always on the terms of the
consumer, as the brand enters their reality, demonstrates value and generates rapport - now, the
brand will want them to meet the consumer on a slightly more neutral setting and preferably in
an environment over which they are able to exercise some degree of control. It is here that the
branded message begins to differ more significantly from more organic memes, as the brand has
a level of control and adaptability in engineering the encounter and its own spread. If the brand is
unable to simply ‘bounce’ its audience to a new medium (or a new type of interaction within the
medium, sometimes it is undesirable to switch media, particularly if that medium is lending itself
to a successful interaction) at that moment, then the emphasis is on the functional need of
wanting to create a way for consumers to connect with it at a later time: the only reason brands
should get details this early is in case something goes wrong with that encounter, and to confirm
it – apart from this the brand will be risking receiving false details, and worse, violating the
consumer’s trust. Nonetheless details are occasionally a good way of continuing to build a
- 29 -

30. connection and trust, but it is also very difficult, unless the brand is certain that their particular
audience is receptive to this type of interaction – and it is a high-pressure interaction, in a low-
interest environment (regardless of medium).
Continuing interaction escalation (drawing the consumer into ever deeper levels and ways of
interacting with the brand) is important, allowing the consumer to become immersed in the world
of the brand and its realities, never imposing action upon them, rather allowing it to emerge
organically from the predisposed attitudes cultivated in the brand meme. Purchase is a natural
extension of an already fulfilling interaction (in terms of ‘true’ brand purchases, not functional
needs in situations of relative ambivalence facilitated by the player with the greatest market
dominance (Hofmeyr & Rice, 2000:101) – and even repeat purchases, this paper hypothesises,
should occur as a result of the consumer seeking to return to the brand and be immersed in it,
continuing to use free samples, download and use widgets, take part in communication and
communities, play games and know the brand story and its key people’s beginnings. Anything
less would seem to be a threat to credibility, as the brand ‘blows its cover’ by attracting attention
to its desire for purchases; no brand wants to be labelled a “greenwasher” or equivalent – brands
must allow consumers to invest in them.
Every escalation, no matter what it is, should always be based on consumer insight and an
understanding of the present roles they are playing and the mental states they are in, leading the
brand to understand what they are ready for – a process this paper dubs ‘calibration’ – another
term appropriated from Von Markovik. Thus escalation is never about the brand, and following a
specific process rigidly, brands must develop complex webs of insights on consumers and
translate these into algorithms (not processes, which is potentially an easy pitfall for brands to
fall into, particularly in regards to technology) for determining appropriate media opportunities
and messages, which ideally should be micro targeted down to individual levels (and naturally
where this is impossible down to the smallest level the brand is able). Brands should not be
afraid to take steps ‘back’ either – in fact, if Von Markovik (2007:37) is correct that people
choose what is not forced upon them and that which is slightly elusive, they should probably
offer it, allowing the consumer to feel in control, giving messages such as, "hey so-and-so, we
see you aren't using [some facility], are you sure you want it?" This paper hypothesises that this
willingness to back off and walk away, and to respect them, ostensibly putting their interests first
is what will draw consumers to love a brand and give it their respect in reciprocation.
Finally having transitioned and successfully time-bridged, now having consumers in a more
- 30 -

31. neutral scenario – i.e. one where they have sought out the brand (the process is not linear, and the
brand might start here too, for instance off a web-search) – the brand continues to unveil a deep
identity organically, but more importantly should be hypersensitive to any return communication
from consumers, and should engage the power of ritual to sub-communicate purchase, for it is at
this stage that the brand is able to capitalise upon its dominance thus far (of course, they might
just get the sale straight away without any of this, but that is the ‘fool's mate’ of branding: it does
not necessarily mean that the branding is any good, it only means that the brand struck it lucky
with a pre-interested customer). The power of ritual is simple, basing its success from the
principle of anchoring in Neuro-Linguistic Programming (that is, the linking of specific states,
actions and experiences with specific cues, in a Pavlovian fashion), although its implementation
surely requires in-depth research, and it is simply this (inspired by Von Markovik, 2005): odds
are that a given consumer has bought something from an enterprise of similar nature to that of
the brand; and with any purchase is an accompanying rhythm, pattern and set of actions taken, in
an environment with a specific tone. This, alongside powerful recommendation engines (whose
ease-of-use arguably contributes to ritual) accounts for the success of many online stores, as they
tap into consumer’s ritualised experiences of online purchase, preconditioned by other brands
such as Amazon.com. This also has implications across experience types: for instance Twitchell
(2004:193) notes how museums have at times taken on the trappings and organisational styles
and structures of commerce in order to improve visitor experiences and curio sales, and how
upmarket commercial entities have at times taken on the trappings of museums in creating
reverence and respect for goods, and a sense of lingering and sacredness of presence in their
stores. The understanding of the role of ritual, and its subsequent deliberate creation by brands is
highly important in brands’ ability to take advantage of positive social expectations and rules.
5. CONNECTING IN THE RIGHT WAY
5.1 Social violation theory
The mere fact that a consumer has appeared to engage a message, and possibly even has engaged
a message in a particular way, as is in accordance with aforementioned theory is by no means
indicative of that message’s success or failure. Outside of changing the actual content and type
of message, there would appear to be little that brand communication professionals can do to
improve the success of their branded messages. Yet, owing to a history of preconditioning, and
necessary social programming, a strange phenomenon exists in linguistic cultures: ‘social rules’.
A narcissistic and self-involved person might find that people will be [acting] interested in them
- 31 -

32. for a while, and will engage in mutually beneficial interactions with them, will take useful things
from them, some of which will validate and sometimes even help the distasteful individual; but
the reality remains that that individual has never truly connected with them. This is called Social
Violation theory: social violation theory is a theory is loosely based upon several other related
theories (cf. “Role congruity theory”, relating to gender roles and expectations, as presented by
Farris, 2007; “Expectancy violations theory”, relating to the development of verbal and non-
verbal expectations and interpretation of violations of these expectations, presented by Burgoon,
Stern, & Dillman, 1995), and made practical to seduction by “Lovedrop” (2007) whom
articulates the notion that within in a given sociolect there are social norms at play, which can be
discovered through trial and error, and once known can be exploited in order to gain ‘higher
value’ by not making social errors, and conversely baiting competitors into doing so. This theory
is of particular moment to brand communication professionals, who frequently fail to
acknowledge social norms and thus lower their own value – at a point, the violator’s value
becomes sufficiently low that social groups with whom they are interacting will make active
attempts to remove them from the group and perform other violating actions themselves, which
are condoned owing to the fact that the violator deliberately and powerfully violated first. This
exact scenario is played out verbatim on a daily basis when promotional staff approach strangers,
when television advertisements intrude on ‘family-time’, when brands interrupt consumers but
fail to understand their lives and their problems, and then fail to involve them in attempting to
understand them, and when consumers try to resolve product issues only to be faced with further
tedious resolution systems.
The opposite of social violation is charm; the truly charming put their egos and objectives on the
backburner (in a congruent arrangement with the need for authentic and independent identity and
values, of course) and make a decided effort in being genuinely interested, understanding, asking
questions, and helping (Hand-Boniakowski, 2003). Counter-intuitively, it is this behaviour that
in fact lends power and control in the interaction to the ‘charmer’ (this paper posits that the
‘holder of court’ in this way is the holder of control under Holding Court in 3.2.2).
However if it were only so simple, the woes of brand communications would vanish. Alas, it is
not. At times it is necessary to violate social norms, occasionally to test and evolve approaches,
but more often in order to generate sales – the task is not to remove this social violation entirely,
but rather to minimise it, and to compensate for it where necessary.
5.1.1 Social proof
- 32 -

33. The brand’s first violation typically occurs upon the opening of the initial dialogue with the
would-be consumer, as they beckon for attention, bursting into the already cluttered world of the
consumer with a (typically) non-urgent request. For one thing, people of modern Western
societies are socially conditioned to be suspicious of strangers, especially those with "no
apparent reason" for talking to them – should a stranger merely approach asking questions they
will certainly appear blackguardly, unless the environment has already disarmed them to their
overtures (Von Markovik, 2007:76); otherwise you need to figure out a way to do that yourself.
Worse, they may even brush strangers off for no reason other than that they have pre-categorised
them. This is not a negative judgement, this is simply the social reality within which they exist,
this is a simple necessity within their reality for efficient survival: when random beggars
approach them and ask for money they may either give out of pure principle or turn them away
mindlessly. Both are preconditioned responses: it makes no difference that perhaps the beggar in
question had the most beautiful story of need to tell; they were unable to negate their target’s
protection shields. It is most rare in all spheres of life that such shields are disarmed. Violation
effects can be minimised in several ways.
First, it is significant if a brand is able to approach with an appropriate level of status and by
harnessing the immense power of social proof and ‘peacocking’ (however, this strategy is almost
impossible to implement on initial communications campaigns with a typical product, on a
typical budget if the consumer base is not already substantial). Brands should build status first,
and then social proof, in that order: status by embodying what the target aspires to, or at the least,
what they respect or appreciate, social proof by being the observed, not the observer. Following
this the brand should open interaction non-threateningly, conveying their deep identity that has
been developed, and just be, without an (apparent) agenda. There is no quick fix in branding
anymore. Brands can no longer afford to go into interactions and sell in the first 30 seconds –
partly because of social violation and partly owing to the poor frame control facilitated in this
mode, (potentially the reason for the status of the thirty second television commercial as a dying
and sometimes dead creature). Brands need to be ‘themselves’ and authentically connect with
individuals, as individuals.
Cialdini (2003:99) recounts research showing that despite both audiences’ and artist’s distaste
towards canned laughter its practice remains widespread owing to the simple principle that
audiences nevertheless laugh longer and more often and rate material higher when that material,
especially poor material, is dubbed with laugh tracks. Gaylord (2007) notes that forty percent of
- 33 -

34. auctions on eBay sell for more than their "Buy it now" price (eBay is a digital auction website,
and the “Buy it now” price facilitates the avoidance of the auction process, purchasing as one
would in a typical retail environment). When choosing between identical items, users tend to go
for the one with the most bids; auctioneers are also much more likely to get bidders when they
do not use secret opening prices. This is all a result of the principle Cialdini (2007:99) calls
Social Proof, which he defines as: “determin[ing] what is correct by finding out what other
people think is correct. The principle applies especially to the way we decide what constitutes
correct behavior. We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see
others performing it.” A person is more likely to be perceived as funny, interesting and attractive
if other people who appear to be enjoying their company surround them.
This principle can be observed in action in the world of branding by observing the manner
wherein the very incidence of a brand being popular leads to its ongoing and increasingly
popularity – arguably the most significant driver of the great success of the iPod, a product many
consumers had little desire or use for but purchased nonetheless, as well as in the world of ready-
to-drink alcoholic beverages in South Africa’s emerging market where Savanna premium cider
grows rampantly, both building from the perceptions, mindshare and connotations created by
their social proof: “everyone else has one, it looks cool, it must be pretty good, I’ll try it”, where
it would otherwise possibly not even be in the consideration set of consumers.
This principle’s positive (or indeed negative) impact can be augmented by another related
principle, that of “peacocking”: Von Markovik (2007:24) describes it as the use of techniques to
increase noticeability, in his field largely clothing and accessories, but in the field of branding
this relates to a far greater set of techniques in the developed area of breaking clutter and getting
attention. While this section will not go into great depth on these techniques themselves, it is
important to realise that their effect is that of increasing social pressure on the brand, and
enabling consumers to open dialogues (positive and negative) with the brand despite disinterest
in the actual offering. This has no value taken alone, and is generally likely to decrease the
brand’s success alone, category norms exist because they are the ‘safe’ and trusted options;
however, once the interaction has been opened the brand is then able to demonstrate congruence
with its image, which is a definite demonstration of higher value – Von Markovik (2007:25)
asserts:
The congruence is the critical point. A man with a top hat and a feather boa, with two women on
his arms and surrounded by laughing friends looks like the man. Everyone in the room will notice
him and women will whisper to one another that they want to be introduced to him. But the same
- 34 -

35. man sitting by himself in a corner could end looking like a social reject.
Similarly, the Savanna brand with its oddly shaped and slightly dysfunctional packaging might
be seen as interesting but undesirable were it not popular, yet owing to its popularity its
packaging lends it an additional differentiation and a chic appeal.
The application of social proof extends even to manner wherein media is utilised by brands.
Schreuder (2007) relates that consumers engage in both passive and active media consumption,
which relates to the concepts of userly and makerly media, but from the perspective of the
consumer not of the message and that brands need to understand how their consumers are
interacting with their messages and media. In the case of more passive media consumption
Schreuder (ibid) implies that social proof (brand building) are its primary function – consumers
are not actively engaging with the medium, but consciously or unconsciously take note of its
message, and this builds the brand socially (consumers tend to see brands able to afford mass
media advertising as ‘big brands’ – a form of social proof) as the consumer recalls having
engaged with the brand at later stage, but not actively.
5.1.2 Calibration
Second, brands can minimise violation by engaging in sophisticated calibration techniques – if
the message content and type of interaction (for instance being userly or makerly, and what
mode thereof), message timing and channel planning are sufficiently well calibrated there is a
very high chance of at least opening an interaction, from which point ‘damage control’ can
commence and recover the brand by both demonstrating a developed identity, as well as by
diverting attention by symbolically compensating the audience and offering value (note: this
paper recommends implicit value demonstrations [i.e. captivating and entertaining interaction
and authentically helpful and unrelated benefits/opportunities to the audience], as explicit value
demonstrations [promotions] may dilute the brand by appearing to be ‘buying’ the attention of
the consumer, and will most likely alert the consumer that the brand does not have a developed
deep identity). This should not be confused as saying that brands should understand but follow
category norms: category norms and social rules and distinct. Category norms refers to the
manner wherein the bulk of brands in a given category tend to engage with consumers; social
rules however refers to what is and is not acceptable from a consumer perspective in regards to
interaction (whether that be with a brand or with another human – although these will likely be
slightly different, further research is required on this point). Enslin (2003) avers: “the
- 35 -

36. unconventional and unexpected point of planned brand contact can break through commercial
clutter barriers to impact on consumers and communicate or reinforce the single-minded
positioning of the brand.” It is only by understanding the rules governing social violation that
brand planners are able to intelligently design such alternative brand contacts, in a sustainable
way. It is suggested that those that follow both category norms and social rules become
“wallpaper”, while those break both category and social rules experience temporary success, but
soon are rejected and are unable to make lasting impacts; hence it is the carefully crafted brand
that succeeds in following social rules, yet breaking category norms that is able to ensure for
itself a path into the future – of course, this requires ever-increasing consumer and environment
insights as well as ongoing innovation in order to lead to its desired outcomes.
5.1.3 Permission
Third, brands can take a longer-term view to marketing, taking on what Godin (1999) calls
“Permission Marketing”, making the brand available to the consumer and allowing the consumer
to seek it out as they have need, giving the brand permission to sell to them; and by marketing
through social networks as networks recommend the brand amongst themselves.
5.1.4 Social roles
Fourth, brands can (with their detailed insights of the audience gleaned in calibration)
extrapolate the particular social role being played (or aspiring to be played) by the audience in
that moment, and extrapolate from it all of its caveats and implications, thus possessing a social
norms frame to hold the consumer to (Cialdini, 2003:92), and play from these rules, politely and
humorously insinuating that they aren’t ‘playing fair’ if they break them – these rules do not
need to be logical, or even connected, what is important is that the consumer believes them
implicitly and responds to them. For instance assume a person frequenting a prestigious
restaurant – such a person might not follow particularly more high-culture customs or be more
‘cultured’ than any other person, yet given the context of polished wine glasses, dim lighting,
expensive linens and well-dressed waitrons, such a customer is far more likely to take on a
‘cultured’ role and act and think according to those norms of wealth and high culture. Hence, a
waitron might further this ‘cultured’ role by playing to it in speech and in action – when the time
for ordering food arrives the customer is far more likely to continue to think, feel and act in
terms of the role being played, that is wealth and high culture; the creation of this experience can
be utilised by the savvy waitron in order to upsell customers, offering the more expensive and
- 36 -